cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[PruePhillip]

Certainly a possibility. It is also a possibility that a race of 5 dimensional beings learned the technology of making universes and ours is one of their mass produced models.

'Making universes' is not the issue. It's who made the first universe that our 5 dimensional beings emerged from - that grand effect that had no cause.

 

[Polymath257]

The point of OP was about "cause-and-effect".

And one question is what it even means to be a cause or an effect.

Then there is the question of what things have causes or produce effects.

From my perspective, causes and effects only exist *within* the universe and through natural laws.

A cause is a collection of events that, when the natural laws apply to it, the result at a later time is the effect.

So there are two aspects that are relevant to the discussion:

1. ALL causes happen within the universe.

2. ALL causes are prior in time to their effects.

From the first, we can conclude that the universe as a whole has no cause.

The second shows that, if time has a start, then there can be no cause of time.

 

[Polymath257]

Does that mean because science has ignored the evidence for gods and spirit for hundreds of years and have figured out mechanisms for how things happen in the physical universe, that a naturalistic speculation for the beginnings of the universe has to be the right answer, even if there is no evidence for it except the lack of "scientific" evidence for God.
But really physical mechanisms do not and have not got rid of the need for God.

That is simply historically inaccurate. Most of the early scientists were theists and investigated nature as a way to learn more about the God they believed in.

What was discovered, to their consternation, is that the Biblical stories simply don't agree with what they saw.

That is why deism arose: to separate God from the universe so that the discoveries of science could be made consistent with theism.

At each stage of the process, the theists insisted they have had the truth, been shown wrong, and then retreated to another type of theism.

The need for God is psychological, not something required for actual explanations.

 

[Polymath257]

We know cause effect exist with physical things, they are dead after all and need a cause to stir them up.

Huh? Physical things interact strongly with other physical things. This is especially true with chemistry (just put some baking soda and vinegar together).

The 'cause' of most movement of matter is either gravity (in other words, other masses) or electromagnetism (through chemistry, friction, etc).

Something living can be that cause and if that something living is actually life itself then there is no need for a cause of life itself. It just is.

Um, living things are physical and their life processes are based in chemistry.

Even the chaos of a dead quantum environment (assuming that it is chaos) which does stuff without reason, cause, needs something to organise it.
But don't listen to me, I'm just a retired postman.

But matter often self-organizes. take some magnets in a bag and shake them up. They will be much more organized after than before.

Matter is not 'dead': it interacts with other matter, causing it to change and move.

 

[Polymath257]

'Making universes' is not the issue. It's who made the first universe that our 5 dimensional beings emerged from - that grand effect that had no cause.

And what sort of universe was that being in? And then, who (or what) made THAT universe?

And yes, the whole system *cannot* have a cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And what sort of universe was that being in? And then, who (or what) made THAT universe?

And yes, the whole system *cannot* have a cause.

Sorry for not answering other of your answers.
To a skeptic as a strong one, that is unknown. Your reasoning includes assumptions, that are not self-evident.

 

[F1fan]

Have you realized Nirvana? The path of all religions is to realize the oneness of all that exists, by giving up the dualistc mind. It is not about attaining dualistic knowledge. So religious enlightenment in all its forms. Tao, Brahman, Nirvana, God are one and the same, a mind free from thought, pure awareness.

Irrelevant to the topic.

Are you trying to deflect from supoprting the claims you made about some sort of god existing, and how it is all things?

 

[F1fan]

Two problems with the statement
1 - you can't prove an Intelligent Designer doesn't physically exist

No one has to prove things not known to exist DON'T exist. If people are claiming a god/creator/intelligence then they need to back up those claims.

2 - You can' prove an Intlligent Designer doesn't exist outside of the physical universe.

Same as above. The idea isn't relevant to describing how the universe functions.


[/quote]Yes, I fear our five cent piece could some day have King Charles on it.[/QUOTE]
Fears tend to be irrational.

 

[Brian2]

It is fine to say we don't know.

It is not fine to say ee don't know so god did it.

No that is not fine. It is also not fine to say "we don't know so the only nature did it".
That is what I seem to be hearing from many and so I need to tell them that is religious type faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant to the topic.

Are you trying to deflect from supoprting the claims you made about some sort of god existing, and how it is all things?

Well, all things are a pretty big category and dependent on how you understand supporting claims, religious people don't need evidence, because they can believe without evidence. Yeah, I know. But all things are not really that rational, only in some cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No that is not fine. It is also not fine to say "we don't know so the only nature did it".
That is what I seem to be hearing from many and so I need to tell them that is religious type faith.

Yeah. There is a 3rd option:
Person 1: I know reality is X and not Y.
Person 2: I know reality is Y and not X.
Me: I don't know and I really don't need that, because I don't care about that anymore.

So here are more than 2 faiths.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No one has to prove things not known to exist DON'T exist. If people are claiming a god/creator/intelligence then they need to back up those claims.
...

Evidence for the bold one.

 

[Brian2]

Like magic - it just happens.

I think he might be referring to the B model of time which has all of space time just existing always. You have always been there reading this and time can even go backways, ignoring and cause effect and so you would be reading this before I wrote it, even if it would still be after I wrote it because time would be going backways.
It seems most physicists believe in this B model of time these days.

 

[F1fan]

'Making universes' is not the issue. It's who made the first universe that our 5 dimensional beings emerged from - that grand effect that had no cause.

Why are assuming there was a "who"? Where did you get that idea?

All we lay people have to do is fdefer to what experts say. They are doing the work, and they report their conclusions. The average person can get caught up in disinformation and religious dogmas way too easily, and not be aware they are repeating irrelevant ideas in debate.

I would respect theists who get science right, but at the most overlay their religious meaning over it. The 20th century is marked by creationists trying hard to replace science and expertise with religious nonsense, and it's still having a negative effect on people.

There is a cause and effect for the discussion: creationists causing harm to society in regards to science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why are assuming there was a "who"? Where did you get that idea?

All we lay people have to do is fdefer to what experts say. They are doing the work, and they report their conclusions. The average person can get caught up in disinformation and religious dogmas way too easily, and not be aware they are repeating irrelevant ideas in debate.

I would respect theists who get science right, but at the most overlay their religious meaning over it. The 20th century is marked by creationists trying hard to replace science and expertise with religious nonsense, and it's still having a negative effect on people.

There is a cause and effect for the discussion: creationists causing harm to society in regards to science.

And believers in evidence where there is no evidence.

 

[Brian2]

And one question is what it even means to be a cause or an effect.

Then there is the question of what things have causes or produce effects.

From my perspective, causes and effects only exist *within* the universe and through natural laws.

A cause is a collection of events that, when the natural laws apply to it, the result at a later time is the effect.

So there are two aspects that are relevant to the discussion:

1. ALL causes happen within the universe.

2. ALL causes are prior in time to their effects.

From the first, we can conclude that the universe as a whole has no cause.

The second shows that, if time has a start, then there can be no cause of time.

Cause and effect can happen at the same time.
All causes that we know about happen within the universe, how does that show that the universe has no cause?

 

[Brian2]

That is simply historically inaccurate. Most of the early scientists were theists and investigated nature as a way to learn more about the God they believed in.

What was discovered, to their consternation, is that the Biblical stories simply don't agree with what they saw.

That is why deism arose: to separate God from the universe so that the discoveries of science could be made consistent with theism.

At each stage of the process, the theists insisted they have had the truth, been shown wrong, and then retreated to another type of theism.

The need for God is psychological, not something required for actual explanations.

Are you saying that the sort of God Christians believe in these days is different to the God they believed in 2000 years ago? or is it just that as science discovered new things, a better interpretation of the Bible was needed at times?
It is speculation to say that God is not needed even if physical mechanisms for how things happen do not need a God as part of the mechanism explanation.
Actually it is more than speculation, it is religious type faith.

 

[We Never Know]

Certainly a possibility. It is also a possibility that a race of 5 dimensional beings learned the technology of making universes and ours is one of their mass produced models.

Religious people say god exists without cause.
Nonreligious people say the universe exists without cause.

Hey on the bright side they both agree on "exists without a cause" they just don't agree on what.

 

[Brian2]

Huh? Physical things interact strongly with other physical things. This is especially true with chemistry (just put some baking soda and vinegar together).

The 'cause' of most movement of matter is either gravity (in other words, other masses) or electromagnetism (through chemistry, friction, etc).

So you agree that cause and effect is needed with physical things. That's good.

Um, living things are physical and their life processes are based in chemistry.

Yes living things are physical and their bodies are chemicals. Does that show us what the life in them is?

But matter often self-organizes. take some magnets in a bag and shake them up. They will be much more organized after than before.

Even if you did have someone shaking the magnets I agree that matter can self organise, in a cause and effect type of way of course. This however is after chaos has been organised and is ruled by the laws of physics.

Matter is not 'dead': it interacts with other matter, causing it to change and move.

So are you saying that chemicals are alive even when in a rock?

 

[ChristineM]

No that is not fine. It is also not fine to say "we don't know so the only nature did it".
That is what I seem to be hearing from many and so I need to tell them that is religious type faith.

Of course it's fine. We cannot know everything and there is no need to fill everything we don't know with god.

Of course you can say no it's not fine because i believe god did it. You have no proof, but you sure do believe and so guess qnd pretend your guess is fact.

I am more honest and an happy to say we don't know.